Students have recently voiced their concern over the contents of the Murphy Report. The report primarily addresses faculty governance, but also proposes changes in student representation guidelines on faculty-student committees. 

The report is rather dry and mundane, but students should marvel that they even have access to the report. The Wesleyan Student Assembly (WSA) fought long and hard for the report’s release, which President Bennet initially kept confidential from the student body.

Bennet took a step in the right direction in facilitating relations between faculty and students by allowing for the release of the report. His effort to include students by allowing them the power of information should be commended. Students have a right to be included and informed on the issues that concern their campus, and appreciate the accessibility of the report.

Within the next few days, students will undoubtedly read the report, and they should read it with alarm and concern. The majority of the report discusses faculty governance, tackling issues such as the tenure process and academic curriculum. By page 45, students will be tempted to abandon the report, bored by its academic tone and jargon. Beware, however, because somewhere around page 55, the report addresses student representation on the Faculty Student Affairs Committee (FSAC) and the Educational Policy Committee (EPC). While students currently have a voice and a vote on these committees, the report proposes that student representation be reduced.

The student voice is a vital element on the FSAC and the EPC. To eliminate student representation on these committees would be detrimental to the University and would jeopardize the relationship and communication between faculty and students. The University’s purpose is to create an environment where students can learn. Students therefore have a right to express themselves in committees that ultimately dictate how they will be educated.

Students need to read the report and protect their right to represent themselves. Faculty considering the report should keep in mind that the student body, however transient, is still the reason they are here. While the report makes numerous constructive proposals on faculty governance issues, its stance on student representation is flawed. If the report truly aims to improve the quality of education, the University then needs to communicate and respect the opinions of those receiving the education.